ReveNews
-
NAVIGATION
-
TOPICS
-
THE REVENEWS BLOGGERS
-
QUICK CONTACT
ShareASale’s PPC Policy
In Part 2 of ShareASales Pledges and Expectations blog series, Brian posted a very detailed explanation of how SAS will be handling Affiliate PPC Search issues, such as trademark bidding.
My post isn’t about the policy per se. Although, I think it is fair approach to the concerns surrounding affiliates doing PPCSE marketing. Overall, I personally like the policy.
What I like even more is the approach Brian has taken addressing those issues. While it is a policy change to some extent, he has outlined expectations (of both affiliates and merchants) as well as set in place a system for affiliates to formally pledge to good behavior and be rewarded for such.
Along with that, Brian has been very specific in what will not be allowed. Yeah…..clear cut rules. Always a bonus when it comes to QA. But he goes an extra step in specifically spelling out the consequences for breaking the rules. That is the part I’m really loving. It’s very transparent. Both merchants and affiliates now know..if you do X, Y will happen. This is often the critical element I see missing when it comes to network and/or merchant compliance efforts. Granted there may be internal policies (I know for a fact those internal polices are there and know what they are in some instances), but those policies aren’t know to affiliates. A nebulous consequence doesn’t carry as much weight as a known consequence as a deterrent.
The way Brian has approached the issue also smells of….dare I say it….transparency.
So I, for one, was glad to see tonight’s post on the ShareASale blog. Hats off to SAS once again.
8 Comments
Leave a comment
-
We Support New York Affiliates
-
Subscribe to ReveNews
Very forward thinking and proactive policy to establish. Affiliates need to be clear from the start of working with a new merchant on the rules of PPC bidding on trademark terms. Some merchants allow this and don’t have an issue with it. Personally I think more merchants should allow more leeway to give affiliates a greater chance to succeed with PPC. Although their own PPC efforts might suffer a bit, PPC ROI shouldn’t be affect too much if they know what they’re doing. But as always its a corporate decision. I think CJ and Linkshare should seriously look at this move and do something similar.
SAS is leading the industry again!
Trademark poaching cockroaches, your days are numbered, SAS is making some bug spray available to their merchants.
The power a network has, in aggregate policing, has largely gone to waste in most networks where they lack the ethics and willpower to do the right thing for their partners, both merchants and affiliates.
I’m so very thrilled that SAS is different than most.
Great move by SAS - the only problem is that they do not represent mainstream advertisers - their advertisers are the small guys with less established brands (aka, minimal trademark volume) so this policy is great but doesn’t really shake anything up.
The truth is that TM bidders that do so without regard to advertiser services agreements should get $0, not some portion.
Also, if they continue to breach the contract they should be kicked off the network.
Mark
Mark, thats not entirely true. SAS does have some large brands…
I think assigning a fixed 3 strikes you’re out rule is a bad idea. Every affiliate is different. Some manage many many advertisers and a huge number of keywords. The number of strikes allowed should be in proportion to that. If you have 10 advertisers you work for and you commit 3 strikes it’s probably malice. It you have 1000 advertisers and manage thousands of keywords for each, 3 strikes probably is an innocent oversight. I think the net effect is that this will scare away the big search affiliates and leave just the small fry. You don’t want to invest time and effort only to see your account closed for a few honest mistakes which represent 0.001% of your efforts.
SAS large brands include:
CSN Stores
Jones Soda
Washington Redskins
Chinese Laundry
Land of Nod
Life Lock
among many others. I just think the perception that they don’t have big brands is false and partially based on Brian’s unassuming manner.
I see a “comment” above (June 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm), which lists my name as the author, but I did not write it, and would not have written something like this in June 2008.
Can there be more than one Mark Welch!?!